The 'defining votes' will come in the next round of appropriations bills, said Jeff Sessions. | AP photo
Close

If all House Republicans did was take one vote to repeal the entire health care law, that would just be one vote, Bonjean said. “When you rifleshot, you create a longer laundry list that you can take to the voters,” he said — which is crucial to convince their voters that they haven’t given up on defeating the law.

“By holding these votes, they can say they’ve done their part, and that the Senate and the president are holding it up,” Bonjean said. “When the attention does turn back to health care, they’ve laid out a good foundation for their case.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Both of Tuesday’s House bills go after pieces of the law’s $105 billion in mandatory funding, which has angered Republicans because they say it can go forward without the approval of Congress — the money Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has called “secret funding.”

They’re two of five targeted defunding bills the Energy and Commerce Committee has approved. A third, repealing the law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, passed the House just before the recess, while the remaining two — turning graduate medical education from mandatory to discretionary spending, and doing the same for personal responsibility education programs — still await House action.

During the floor debate, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the sponsor of the bill to repeal the exchanges funding, argued that it’s a deficit reduction measure because the Congressional Budget Office said it would cut the deficit by $14 billion over 10 years. Other Republicans said the point of the bill is to resist what they called a lack of accountability in the mandatory funds, with Blackburn calling the exchange grants “a slush fund which will have no congressional oversight.”

Democrats said the bill would undermine the power of state governments, not enhance it, because exchanges would still exist even if the funding was taken away. Under the law, HHS is supposed to run the exchanges for states that refuse to set them up.

“The exchanges aren’t going to go away with this legislation. It just means that the states aren’t going to be able to do what they need to do, or they’re going to yield to the federal government,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)

But Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said the law gives HHS approval rights on so many decisions in the exchanges — such as which health plans can be sold in them, who can enroll in them and even whether the website is good enough — that the states don’t have the kind of authority they need for the exchanges to succeed.

“The states are coming to understand that there is no flexibility in these exchanges,” Burgess said. “The law clearly puts Washington in control.”

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:45 p.m. on May 3, 2011.

The House Republicans have a choice: refuse to raise the debt ceiling until Obama caves, or capitulate. We won't know whether we're winning until we see desks being cleaned out at DOE, DOE, HHS, HUD et.al and big empty parking lots adjacent to government bureaucrat warehouses. If we wait until November 2012, the game will be over and we will have lost.

I thought the argument against mandatory insurance was that it was against the constitution to force people to buy a commercial product. When did it morph into costing too much or hurting the job market? The whole purpose of mandatory insurance is to keep costs under control by preventing people from gaming the system.

The part of the health care legistlation that costs more is the part that covers the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. Neither of those items are what's being de-funded.

Do the House Republicans really believe their base is so stupid that their Republican supporters don't know the Republican representatives are wasting time and money on legislation that's DOA? Well, on second thought, maybe House Republicans are right; maybe their base is that stupid.

We won't know whether we're winning until we see desks being cleaned out at DOE, DOE, HHS, HUD et.al and big empty parking lots adjacent to government bureaucrat warehouses. If we wait until November 2012, the game will be over and we will have lost.

Note to brain:

1. In case you didn't realize, the GOP is losing on all fronts and will fold like one of grandma's lawnchairs.

2. The game for the GOP was officially over May 1st. (The day Obama de nutted the GOP of the only toothpick they were standing on..........FIGHTING TERRORISM)

What's your again? We want to make sure the GOP is uniform in their appearance.

I for one am coming to the reluctant conclusion that the GOP is gutless (still). And stupid (still.) This is in distinction to the Democrats, who are merely evil. If the GOP had a shred of testicular fortitude, they'd defund ObamaCare in the budget and tell Obama to pound sand. And you lefties may want to cogitate upon gasoline persistently above $4/gal., unending (real) unemployment around 15-20% and food prices into the stratosphere. Nice reelection strategy you've got there.

everything the republicans do is about their next election and not about creating jobs, fixing the economy or moving this country forward. let them whizzle their time and the tax payer money away. at least Obama is on the job and getting things done.

Nather's headline is pure fantasy, surprise, surprise. According to Rasmussen, March numbers show for the first time those favoring repeal has dipped below 50%. Right now, 47% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the law, while 42% are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 38% who Strongly Favor repeal and 33% who Strongly Oppose it." So, now the GOP "base" is 47% of US pop. that are LIKELY VOTERS? The margins are at 5% now, but to say they are playing to the base is the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm sorry, but how was that possible considering the "HCR" hasn't taken effect and won't until 2012?

This is why 47% of the country supports repeal in some way. Sheer ignorance. They don't know the law, they dont' know when it take effect, they know nothing except that they were told it was horrible, and Fox News told them to go protest it, so they did. The facts are that several key provisions of HCR have already taken effect.

There a number of provisions made in the health reform passed in March 2010. In the first year itself that is 2010-11, provision was made for young adults to remain on their parents' health plan till they attained the age of 26. The current health plans discontinue health plans of individuals when they attain 19 years of age.

A preexisting condition won't be denied coverage:

Those who are not covered under any health insurance plan, especially those with conditions which pre-exists will be able to get coverage on health. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to young adults with pre existing conditions either. For all those who retire early, there is health coverage, though it a reinsurance program which is temporary. During the year 2011, surgeons and primary care physicians will be paid a bonus payment by Medicare

Temporary insurance, also known as “high-risk pools” begins covering people who have a pre-existing condition and have been without insurance for the last six months. Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage if you become sick Insurance companies can’t place lifetime limits on health coverage. They are also restricted from using arbitrary annual limits on your health coverage. Employers providing retiree health insurance get funding to encourage continued coverage to early retirees. Young adults up to age 26 can remain on their family’s health insurance plan. Individuals with new employer-based or individual insurance plans do not have to pay a deductible and other out of pocket costs for certain preventive care services.

There have been lots of benefits that took effect in 2010, including the very one that the other poster claimed, that her 25 year old child could remain on her insurance.

If people that a screaming loudest against HCR actually knew what was in it, rather than what they have been told by the GOP sponsored Tea Party and Fox News, they wouldn't be driving their Rascals to Tea Party rallies to protest against it. The same economic geniuses that gave Bush a second term as a reward for the Prescription Drug Benefit (that of course they never paid for), are now protesting against giving the same type of coverage that they get to other Americans. It's a clear case of "We got ours, now you kiddies run along and pay for it."

to LYNN C who said, "Because of HCR my 25 year old son got the surgery he needed. Any other parents out there grateful to add their adult children to their policies?"

I'm sorry, but how was that possible considering the "HCR" hasn't taken effect and won't until 2012?

Girl, I'm sorry, but not surprisingly, you are incorrect about this. This part of the HCR bill, allowing children up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents' policies, kicked in on January 1, 2011. In fact, several provisions of the law kicked in on January 1, 2011. Here is a site where you can educate yourself about the issue before posting on it again. This information is also available at many, many other sites.

Repugs oppose HCR, but I have yet to hear them offer any alternative, yet they whined the entire time this bill was being passed that they could do it so much better. Well, where is it??? Also, they have clearly shown they are not concerned about creating jobs. Their main focus seems to be on Planned Parenthood and NPR.

I'm thinkin' that gas prices were one of the hundreds of things that resulted Ol' Jimmy C. being a one-termer. I see history is once again repeating itself...

Carter was a one termer for alot of reasons, primarily because Americans were being held hostage in Iran, and it was on the news every night. Carter tried to send special forces in to rescue the hostages, and the mission failed. Republicans blamed Carter for the failure. Obama, on the other hand, sent in Seals and they successfully killed Bin Laden.

Which President holds the record for length of time US citizens were held hostage during his term? (I'll give you a hint, it isn't Jimmy Carter)

Of course, there were other reasons why Carter was a one-termer, including bad timing. Carter removed the Viet nam era price controls (a very conservative thing to do, free markets and all that) so inflation took off like a rocket. The fed stepped in to stop inflation and raised interest rates to slow down inflation. It was painful, but successful. He also faced record gas prices, due to a middle east oil embargo, and 7.5% unemployment. Yet 18 months after Reagan took office, unemployment, which had increased 1% in Carter's last year, jumped up over 10%, where it remained for nearly a year.